If someone undertook this (which would make a great ARSC Journal article, BTW), make sure to talk to
Scott at Mosaic Records. Also talk to Dennis Rooney's nephew, who works for Sony's archive. And
there should be coordination with the LOC, find out exactly what is now in their possession from
UMG. It's probably also a good idea to stick to disk masters of commercial products, for now. A
centralized database of matrix numbers would be incredibly helpful for all involved, I would think.
If this project were feasible (it would require the help of several corporate entities, deep
cooperation their part, the type rarely seen), it's a perfect thing for an ARSC grant, and also a
NEA grant. I say that only if the end result is made publicly available via an easy-to-use website.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] steven barr
> With reference to Mike Gray's most interesting post adn the others
> regarding the location and existence of metal parts, wouldn't it be great
> if somebody could assemble one big inventory of what metal parts still
> exist and their location, and make it public. That might also slow down a
> few accountant-types at big record companies who want to quietly dispose of
> batches of them. The corporate owners might actually make a few bucks
> licensing the use of some of them, now and then (or pressing vinyl copies),
> which is not possible now since no one can know what still exists. It
> seems like some sunshine on what exists could be very useful on this topic.
> And such a list might facilitate the discovery and safe-keeping of other
> caches of surviving metal parts. There must obviously be more batches to
> be found at other places.
> This is just one of those good ideas (and others may have had it before
> me), without any plan on how to implement it.
> John Haley
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Don Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 04/12/2013, eugene hayhoe wrote:
>> > Gutenberg Bibles are of value. We are not yet at that remove in time
>> > from the initial 78s, but if there are still humans 100 years from
>> > now, is it not conceivable that some would be interested in 'hearing
>> > it as it was first heard?'
>> I think this will be a much smaller number than the number of those who
>> simply want to hear the music in the closest approach to the sound in
>> the studio.
>> There will be a few antique collectors who like gramophones with big
>> horns and want a random selection of typical records to demonstrate the
>> sound. But far more would download a selection (or complete survey) of
>> Fats Waller, Paul Whiteman, or Melba.
>> Don Cox
>> [log in to unmask]